Thursday, 30 April 2015

Back in February, following speculation that the aborted severance application made by the chief executive may have incurred some legal expenditure, I made the following Freedom of Information request;

"I am requesting detailed costs breakdowns, preferably invoices, for external legal advice for the following;1. Any employment issues regarding the Chief Executive of the council from October 2013 to date. Please include any costs incurred prior and during the police investigation early in 2014 and also the Chief Executive's application for severance which he has now withdrawn.If any costs were incurred, please identify the legal firms involved.2. Detailed invoices from Mr Tim Kerr QC and also Slater and Gordon Solicitors (Formerly Russell Jones and Walker)"

The second part of the request concerns the legal advice and representation relating to the Wales Audit Office reports and also the defamation case.

The twenty day legal limit for a response passed over six weeks ago.

Is it a particularly difficult, or time consuming request to answer? I don't think so, especially as nearly a month ago, on the 2nd April, the FOI officer told me he was "in the process of establishing whether the information I have been provided with is complete and will revert to you as soon as possible".

As you can see from the What Do They Know site, and as we now enter the month of May, my recent requests for updates have been simply ignored.

At something of a loss to know what to do and somewhat reluctantly, I've now gone to the Information Commissioner as the council has failed to respond without reasonable explanation. Whether this will have any effect remains to be seen.

I'll let you know.

Update 2.10pm; Coincidentally, and sfter the lengthy silence, I have just received an email update apologising for the "continuing delay in responding to your request, which is continuing to receive attention"
I continue to wait.

'The Claimant is a housewife, mother and amateur blogger. The defendants are a council and a chief executive. It is literally state versus citizen. In a large part, the origins of the entire case derive from the issue of getting ones voice heard at all'

'In light of the evidence, the allegations of perverting the course of justice are unsustainable. This is the most serious allegation and the Claimant deserves to have her reputation vindicated...Mr Davies' evidence was incoherent, confused and contradicted [his] statements given at the time...in short, Mr Davies' evidence of what happened has completely changed and he cannot be relied on'

(From closing submission for the claimant at trial, February 2013)

...In August 2016, following a very belated (three years later) complaint to the police by Mark James that I perverted the course of justice, the investigation was dropped as there was no evidence.

There never was going to be any evidence as I told the truth, on oath, at the time.